This isn't quite a theory, but it does theorise why we have such poor thinking in our Universities.

Lately I have been reading up on quantum physics, economic theory, neuro psych and anything else that can potentially "buzz" my mind.

One thing that is strikingly obvious and I first noticed it while I was at University (or College) that many academics (and students) do not seem to understand the concept of an "analogy". An analogy can be taken from the physical world and used as a construct for solving a multi dimensional problem in a different field, just as a mathematical equation can just as easily be an analogy in its own right. Maths is just a linear inference of an analogy. (It’s a like a written scripture as opposed to a theatrical play).

But where the problem arises and seems to arise often, that an analogy is taken too far down the path to its almost logical absurdity. An analogy is an approximation, It can be right to varying degree's depending on how far along the correlation path you try to take it. All analogies will tend to diverge from what they are inferencing as you work down the path... otherwise the analogy would be the same as the problem!

Then there are those "beta" terms that hang off complex equations that allow the formula to correlate with the analogy, only problem is the beta's potential variance is so large that it is simply no better than the analogy, although it’s assumed that because it is precise it warrants greater academic respect. Yeah, its precise, precisely wrong.

That’s my rant for the day, sequential thinking in a linear format. Like lemmings jumping off a cliff one after the other...